Monday, August 16, 2010

Chris Carlsson: anger at Critical Mass "a curiosity"

The quotation above is from a recent Bay Guardian story on bikes in the city:

"There's no doubt we're going to have way fewer privately owned cars in our culture," he said. On the whole, Carlsson said, he believes motorists show more courtesy toward San Francisco's cyclists than they did 10 or 20 years ago. Yet he acknowledged that people still get unreasonably upset when Critical Mass cyclists swarm into the streets once a month. "It's a curiosity," he said. "They're in gridlock before we even start riding."

Gee, why would people trying to get home after working all week get upset when a bunch of bike people deliberately make their commute harder than it already is? Even the city's own studies don't show fewer cars in our future, though it's an article of faith for the bike people that motor vehicles are becoming obsolete.

Like a lot of bike people, Carlsson, one of the founders of Critical Mass, lives in an ideological, anti-car bubble that's seldom penetrated by reality. (He also thinks wearing a helmet when riding his bike is some kind of corporate imposition, not a commonsense safety measure.)

Rebecca Bowe wrote the Guardian story, though Steve Jones usually covers the bike beat for the city's progressive weekly. Maybe Jones is on his way to Burning Man and wasn't available. But I've never seen Jones, who calls cars "death monsters," make this concession to reality:

All modes of transportation are not created equal. It's inherently riskier to ride bikes than drive cars that are built to keep their occupants safe in crashes. Yet bikes are a key component in the city's and state's long-range goals of reducing carbon emissions, limiting traffic congestion, and reducing dependency on oil.

Riding a bike can be unsafe? That's heresy in progressive circles but only recognizing the obvious to the rest of us. But, like a lot of progs, Bowe still struggles to understand the injunction on the Bicycle Plan: "The recent court ruling dissolves an injunction that halted the city's progress on planned bicycle route improvements, based on the fact that the city hadn't conducted a full-blown environment impact report on the plan." Let's say it again: the city did no environmental review at all of the Bicycle Plan before they began implementing it on city streets. Hence, the injunction and the court order to do an environmental review of the Bicycle Plan.

Mayor Newsom, the purest opportunist in US politics since Richard Nixon:

"A world-class city is a city that tries to democratize its streets," Mayor Gavin Newsom noted at an Aug. 9 press conference held to celebrate the newly liberated Bike Plan. "This is not the old days when it was about bikes versus cars."

Newsom may be singing a different tune after the city deliberately screws up traffic on behalf of the bike people on Second Street, Fifth Street, Cesar Chavez, Masonic Ave. and other city streets.

Still wrong, Rob: if you allow for the health hazards of a sedentary lifestyle, not cycling poses a greater risk than cycling. While other methods of getting fit exist, those methods all carry risks not different from cycling.

Walking/hiking, jogging, and swimming are common ways to stay fit that don't require helmets. And as exercise physilogists point out, cycling is not what's called a "load bearing" form of exercise that helps your bones. You really need to do some cross-training to get an adequate workout.

And then there's the health risk from spending too much time on your bike, which is probably why Lance Armstrong got testicular cancer.

Funny, but I don't feel sad and desperate. Maybe there's something affecting your hearing, like diesel fumes or carbon monoxide. And maybe if you try real hard to focus on actual issues, you can come up with a substantive comment.

I listened to the entire commentary this morning on KQED..and no, Rob's voice was not tired nor disheartening. He offered a reasonable voice as to why many aspects of the bike plan are going to negatively affect living, working and driving in The City. Many callers also talked about the financial impact (negative) the plan could have on businesses downtown when it becomes more and more difficult to get there by car, for those who choose and must drive.

The "transit first" voices on the show mostly talked about grand ideas and visions, and "hopes". I love the woman who called in and just said clearly and succinctly: "Get the bus to show up on time and get me to my destination.."..Seems pretty easy to solve, huh?

MUNI remains one of the slowest and most poorly managed large transit systems in the country.

"People who are trying to get out of the city...." Exactly. They don't even live here and they want me to stay off of the streets one Friday night a month -- to NOT join with my friends in a bike ride home from work to our homes in the city? And plenty of people who are not on bikes seem to love critical mass -- snapping photos and whooping along with us at the merriment and joy. Plus, as was stated, my bike ride to justin herman plaza for CM is a bike ride through total traffic gridlock... well before the ride begins for the cyclists.

"They don't even live here and they want me to stay off of the streets one Friday night a month--"

A lot of them do live here. Some people drive downtown to work, and others ride Muni downtown to work. According to the SFCTA's Countywide Transportation Plan, 77%of city residents work in SF and that 54.2% of all internal SF trips as by automobile, with 16.4% by transit. You and your bike pals are methodically alienating the people of San Francisco, but don't let me stop you.

"And plenty of people who are not on bikes seem to love critical mass -- snapping photos and whooping along with us at the merriment and joy."

Oh, the joy, the spontaneity! Some tourists love to see that kind of thing here---it's part of the San Francisco trip. But they probably wouldn't like it so much if it happened in their town. Gavin Newsom has essentially made Critical Mass part of the city's brand---Irish coffee, French bread, Rice-a-Roni, and Critical Mass. I'm just saying that a lot of city voters are less enamored of the bike trip. Fortunately for Critical Mass and the Bicycle Plan, neither will ever be on the city's ballot come election time.

The driver was drunk, which cancels out a lot of safety "features." Nor is it clear that speed was even a factor in causing the accident. The driver was drunk and driving late at night, when visibility is poor.

Walking or hiking, jogging, swimming, and indeed virtually all methods of getting or staying fit carry risks equivalent to or greater than cycling. As for your cheap shot about testicular cancer, yes, I would most definitely call it a coincidence. The evidence for causation doesn't even rise to the level of anecdote.

You keep trying to argue that bicycles on balance create an unacceptable risk, while the medical and professional literature overwhelmingly says the opposite: that while cycling involves risks (most of the really serious or lethal ones as a result of irresponsible motoring behaviour), the benefits quite clearly exceed the risks. So let's see a cite that actually backs up your position; one where doctors, other health professionals, or statisticians say in so many words that people should not ride bicycles. Not that we should wear helmets, not that maybe we should use different saddles or even ride recumbent bikes, but that we should stop cycling period.

Then I'll post some links to the thousands of articles and studies that say the opposite.

Also, on the topic of anger at critical mass, and cyclists generally, driver behaviour, especially the race from traffic light to traffic light, strongly suggests that motorists have a grossly unrealistic view of the effective speeds their cars can achieve on city streets. It makes sense that many motorists would resent bikes for slowing them down, when in my experience a reasonably fit cyclist can achieve an overall speed comparable to a car's overall speed in urban or even exurban traffic.

Most (but not all) of the cycling in San Francisco is done by young, while males, reasonably fit and healthy. And...most of the cycling is relegated to a small portion of our streets, nearly all flat, or minimally hilly. The people who bike here to and from work, for the most part, live in the flat Mission district, or parts of Upper Market. You won't find many bikers who live in Twin Peaks, Diamond Heights, or neighborhoods west of there biking to work downtown. Hills are pretty steep there.

Much of our city, unlike Toronto, is VERY hilly and extremely hard to navigate on a bike. And it becomes even more difficult hauling groceries home (who does that?)..and in a cold, driving rain.

Cycling here, is not as widespread nor as pleasant as one would be led to believe. It's not horrible, but the hills and weather are a significant fact in the ease of getting around.

I have no comment on factors unique and specific to San Francisco. Anyone who wants to argue that cycling specifically won't work in San Fransisco or parts of it, I'll leave to others with local experience. The same goes for any city where I haven't lived myself. The generic arguments against cycling, on the grounds of safety and traffic delays simply don't hold water; on the topic of safety, I think multiple sources establish that pretty clearly.

"As for your cheap shot about testicular cancer, yes, I would most definitely call it a coincidence. The evidence for causation doesn't even rise to the level of anecdote."

I didn't make that up. The post was about an article by a science writer in the NY Times:"The studies, by researchers at Boston University and in Italy, found that the more a person rides, the greater the risk of impotence or loss of libido. And researchers in Austria have found that many mountain bikers experience saddle-related trauma that leads to small calcified masses inside the scrotum."The problem can apparently be avoided by specially designed bicycle seats. One doctor says, "We make kids wear helmets and knee pads, but no one thinks about protecting the crotch."

"You keep trying to argue that bicycles on balance create an unacceptable risk, while the medical and professional literature overwhelmingly says the opposite..."

Two falsehoods in one sentence. What I'm saying is that riding a bike involves a degree of risk. Obviously everyone must decide for themselves whether the risk is worth the rewards. I just object to the assumption---widespread among cyclists in SF---that the risk is so minimal that the city should encourage even children to ride bikes on our streets. Medical opinion is in fact concerned about the dangers of cycling.

I've never written---or even thought---that people should stop cycling. But they need to be realistic about the dangers. A lot of bike people in SF seem to think that the city is obligated to make cycling risk-free, which is impossible.

Still no sale, Rob; children more than just about anyone else need, and can benefit from, the health advantages of the bicycle. And for children, more than just about anyone else, the benefits therefore outweigh the risks. That explains why, although you can find many many sites arguing that we should mitigate the risks of cycling to children, just as we should manage the risks of feeding, clothing, and transporting our children in other ways, I don't think you will find many doctors or health statisticians who counsel against providing bicycles to children, or who call bicycle enthusiasts "nuts".

As for the cancer: even if I accepted all the anecdotes on bicycles and groin health, your argument for a connection between Lance Armstrong's riding and his cancer still doesn't rise to the level of anecdote.

No one disagrees John that kids and others can enjoy the benefits of cycling, though it's not the only sport that can be healthy..Some of are just saying..esp for kids..JUST not on public streets. The risks outweigh the benefit. Off street bike trails, yes...Parks with no cars, yes.

Rob I didn't see you out at Sunday Streets today. There were thousands of people out biking along the Great Highway, enjoying the fresh air and getting exercise. You were probably inside blogging, sitting on your chair risking eye cancer and hemorrhoids?

In fact cycling seems to be more dangerous than those activities, especially for children.

Nice try.

The article compares bikes to other consumer products. A "Swimming pool" is not a consumer product.

# In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died, from drowning and other causes, in boating-related incidents.1, 2

# More than one in five fatal drowning victims are children 14 and younger.1 For every child who dies from drowning, another four received emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.1

There's a difference between getting slapped and getting punched. How about you wait in line to get slapped and let me know.

Stop signs are there for cars and bicyclists alike. I'd be willing to bet a large portion of the car on bike accidents here are because bicyclists aren't obeying the traffic laws. Everyone who lives in the lower haight has almost been run over by some asshole going 20 down haight and blowing through every stop sign.

Bicyclists tend to be self righteous pricks who think the only law that applies to them has to do with bike lanes.

No, you got the wrong report. You're looking at the San Francisco 2008 Collisions Report, which deals with all collisions on city street. The reference is to page 21 in the City of San Francisco 2008 Bicycle Collision Report issued in 2010: "Table 13 also shows that motorists were assigned fault in 48.7 percent of bicycle injury collisions in 2008, while bicyclists were assigned fault in 49.6 percent of collisions (where fault was assigned)." Table 13 referred to in the text on page 21 is actually on page 22.